scholarly journals How to get and keep your lab funded

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 2519-2521
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chernoff
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Decisive Factor ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Grant Review

Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill—in the art of grant writing at least—could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.

scholarly journals The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-612
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Grant Programs ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110654
Author(s):  
Michael J. Brenner ◽  
Rick F. Nelson ◽  
Tulio A. Valdez ◽  
Stephanie A. Moody-Antonio ◽  
Cherie-Anne O. Nathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Learning Community ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Head And Neck Surgery ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Stepping Stones ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Grant Review

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE’s track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.

scholarly journals Strategies for writing a successful National Institutes of Health grant proposal for the early-career neurointerventionalist

2020 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2020-016964
Author(s):  
Peter Kan ◽  
Maxim Mokin ◽  
William J Mack ◽  
Robert M Starke ◽  
Kevin N Sheth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Grant Proposal ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

ObjectiveThe goal of this article is to provide a succinct review of the key components of a NIH grant application and the NIH reviewprocess for the early career neurointerventionalist.MethodsThe authors reviewed NIH rules and regulations and also reflected on their own collective experiencein writing NIH grant proposals in the area of cerebrovascular disease andneurointerventional surgery.ResultsKey components of theresearch strategy include specific aims, significance, innovation and approach.The specific aims page is the most important page of the application and should be written first. The NIH review isbased on these key components along with an assessment of the appropriatenessof the investigators and environment for the research.ConclusionDetailed knowledge ofthe key components of the research grant is critical to a successful application.The information in the article may aid in the grant writing for early careerneurointerventionalists.

scholarly journals National Institutes of Health grant opportunities for the neurointerventionalist: preparation and choosing the right mechanism

2020 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2020-016743
Author(s):  
Peter Kan ◽  
Michael R Levitt ◽  
William J Mack ◽  
Robert M Starke ◽  
Kevin N Sheth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Preparation Stage ◽  
Collective Experience ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
The Right

ObjectiveThe goal of this article is to provide recommendations for the early career neurointerventionalist in writing a successful grant application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and similar funding agencies.MethodsThe authors reviewed NIH rules and regulations and also reflected on their own collective experience in writing NIH grant proposals in the area of cerebrovascular disease and neurointerventional surgery.ResultsA strong proposal should address an important scientific problem where there is a gap in knowledge. The solution offered needs to be innovative but at the same time based on a strong scientific premise. The proposed research must be feasible to implement and investigate in the researcher’s environment.ConclusionSuccessful grant writing is critical in funding and enhancing research. The information in the article may aid in the preparation stage of grant writing for early career neurointerventionalists.

Subjective influences in the grant review process

1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Grant Review

Hematology Grants Workshop—2001

Hematology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 507-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Todd ◽  
Donald M. Miller ◽  
Roy L. Silverstein
Keyword(s):  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Young Investigator ◽  
Federal Grants ◽  
Comprehensive Listing ◽  
The Common

Abstract This year the Hematology Grants Workshop, chaired by Dr. Todd, includes a comprehensive listing of available National Institutes of Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, and non-federal grants applicable to fellows and junior faculty as well as to established investigators. In Section II, Dr. Miller discusses the essential principles of successful grant writing with a special emphasis on the young investigator. He highlights the best strategies to take and the common mistakes to avoid. In Section III, Dr. Silverstein outlines the structure of the current NIH Integrated Review Group (IRG) system and the study sections of the most relevance to hematology. He traces the path that a grant takes from review to funding including the way in which grants are reviewed at NIH Study Section Meetings and provides advice in the preparation of revised applications.

Be an NIH Reviewer: Contribute to Multidisciplinary Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-374
Author(s):  
Melinda L. Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Small Business Innovation Research ◽  
Multidisciplinary Research ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Study Section ◽  
Nursing Expertise

One of the best ways to contribute to multidisciplinary research and to improve your own knowledge of the review process at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to serve as a peer reviewer for research, traineeship, and small business innovation research proposals. Proactive targeted outreach to Scientific Review Officers (SROs) at NIH will increase your chances to become a reviewer. Reviewers with nursing expertise are especially welcome as multidisciplinary research is becoming more prevalent. Steps to identify a likely study section, contact the correct SRO, and review responsibly are described in this article, written by an experienced NIH review officer.

Peer review of nursing research proposals

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
RD Lindquist ◽  
MF Tracy ◽  
D Treat-Jacobson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Review Session ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Selection Of

The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document